Monday, December 19, 2016

Obama says Democrats lost by not showing up - CNN

Obama says Democrats lost by not showing up
Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama faulted his party's campaign strategy in an interview airing Monday, arguing Democrats suffered stinging electoral losses in last month's vote because they failed to campaign in hard-hit rural areas.
Taking partial blame -- and withholding any direct criticism of Hillary Clinton -- Obama said candidates in the future should ignore at their own peril the places Democrats haven't traditionally performed well.
"You've got a situation where they're not only entire states but also big chunks of states where, if we're not showing up, if we're not in there making an argument, then we're going to lose," Obama told NPR. "And we can lose badly, and that's what happened in this election."
In the aftermath of November's election, some Democrats have accused Clinton of maintaining a relaxed campaign schedule, bypassing states like Wisconsin and Iowa where Obama won in 2012. Her wins were principally in urban areas and on the coasts, leaving the rust belt and the heartland mostly red.
Obama said Democrats hadn't made enough of an attempt to sway voters outside the nation's population centers. Persistent losses in statewide and local races only illustrate the party's structural conundrum, he said.
"There are clearly failures on our part to give people in rural areas or in exurban areas a sense day-to-day that we're fighting for them or connected to them," he told NPR's Steve Inskeep. "Part of the reason it's important to show up...is because it then builds trust and it gives you a better sense of how should you talk about issues in a way that feel salient and feel meaningful to people."
Obama campaigned exhaustively for Clinton in states like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, travel that officials said was dictated by Clinton headquarters and not the White House. In the final stretch, Obama argued for making a stop in Iowa, a state where he campaigned actively during his own bids for office. But Clinton's team nixed the idea, dispatching him instead to battlegrounds they felt were more in play.
In the NPR interview, Obama said Democrats had "ceded too much territory" and took some blame for ignoring political strategy during his early days in office.
"More work would have needed to be done to just build up that structure," he said. "One of the big suggestions that I have for Democrats as I leave, and something that I have some ideas about is, how do we do more of that ground-up building?"
Obama said he would work with the party once he leaves office to develop those changes, offering advice and scouting talented young politicians to champion and promote.
In interviews and press conferences, Obama has now offered extensive thoughts on how Clinton lost in last month's election, suggesting a mix of electoral miscalculation, Russian meddling, and media mistreatment.
Trump knew that Russia was seeking to harm his opponent, Obama argued, though stopped short of accusing the Republican of colluding with Moscow.
"That the CIA is now assessing, which was it was done purposefully to tilt the election in the direction of a particular candidate, shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. And in fact isn't a surprise to anybody," Obama said. Later he clarified that US intelligence officials are still working to determine a definitive motive for Russian hackers.
He said in the interview that Clinton's policy and diplomatic experience was lost in a sensationalistic political environment -- fueled, he said, by information gleaned from Russian hacks.
"In that scrum, in that swirl, you know, Donald Trump and his celebrity and his ability to garner attention and obviously tap into a lot of the anxieties and fears that some voters have, I think, definitely made a difference," he said.
"If we don't, you know, do some hard reflection -- all of us -- on how that happens, then we're like a body that is already weakened and then becomes more vulnerable to foreign viruses, becomes more vulnerable to manipulation and demagoguery and that's something that I'm also going to be thinking a lot about in my afterlife, my post-presidency," he went on.

Why the Latest Yahoo Hack Is So Much Worse Than You Think - TIME Business

Posted: 15 Dec 2016 01:43 PM PST

Imagine you’re about to buy a restaurant. It’s a place that was hugely popular, but has since lost its luster. Your plan is to turn it around. Before you can close the deal, the business reveals not one, but two incidents that jeopardized its patrons’ safety. The inspectors show up, demanding more information. Meanwhile, news of the problem spreads like wildfire, which will make your renovation efforts even more challenging. 
That gives you an idea of the position Verizon executives find themselves in after Yahoo disclosed its second massive security breach in two months. The first affected 500 million accounts, then the largest corporate hack in history. The breach Yahoo announced this week involved 1 billion accounts. The incidents, while separate hacks, both took place two or three years ago yet were only disclosed recently.

Yahoo’s stock, which had been steadily trading above $40 a share since Verizon made a $4.8 billion offer to buy its online operations, plunged 6% Thursday as the news surrounding the latest hack grew increasingly dire. The White House said that the FBI is investigating the hack. That followed reports that its victims included more than 150,000 federal workers, including FBI, CIA, NSA employees and former diplomats. New York’s Attorney General said he would also look into the breach.
The news drew condemnation from officials in the U.S. and abroad. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia vowed to press Yahoo executives on “why its defenses have been so weak.” The head of a German cybersecurity agency slammed Yahoo as well, noting dryly, “There is an array of German email providers for whom security is not a foreign concept.”
The bitter pill for Verizon is that, at a time when data breaches are growing more common as well as more sophisticated, the Yahoo hack is not your typical cyberattack. Visit the site haveibeenpwned.com and you may find your email account among some of the big breaches in recent years: Target (110 million users), eBay (145 million), Adobe (152 million), LinkedIn (165 million), and MySpace (359 million).
But Yahoo’s multiple breaches are not only bigger, they’re taking years for the company to uncover, meaning more incidents could still surface. And they involve an Internet brand that was once a go-to site for news, content and email, meaning there’s plenty of sensitive data at stake. Yahoo has said that only 225 million of its accounts are actively used these days, but stolen data on passwords, birthdates and the personal questions used to verify identity remain vulnerable even for long-dormant accounts.
Yahoo offers a cautionary tale to companies that, facing a turnaround or pressure to keep costs down, opt to skimp on security budgets. Users may be accustomed to a single breach, provided the company improves security thereafter. But two massive breaches can drive even loyal users away, invite class-action lawsuits, and tarnish a brand. Verizon is potentially importing these hazards if it decides to go through with its Yahoo acquisition. 
“It’s a pretty bad time for Yahoo because it’s been in acquisition negotiations with Verizon,” Troy Hunt, the security researcher who set up haveibeenpwned.com, said in an interview on Australian TV. “Not only is this [breach] double the size, but to have it demonstrate a pattern of failures on the part of Yahoo, you have to think it’s going to have a pretty serious impact on them.”
Still, Wall Street analysts didn’t appear concerned that Verizon would scuttle the Yahoo deal. They largely feel that Yahoo’s advertising technology and properties like Yahoo Sports and Yahoo Finance remain a strong fit with Verizon’s AOL unit. After Yahoo’s first data breach in September, a Verizon executive said the merger still made senseRather than walking away from a deal it’s coveted for a while, Verizon is likely to lower the offering price (as it did in the wake of the first breach) and to protect Verizon from any legal fallout from the hacks. 
“At the end of the day, Verizon wants this property,” Oppenheimer analyst Jason Helfstein said on CNBC. “They want to put it with AOL and invest in ad technology across both brands.”